The effort to make the transcript is appreciated - but is there any reason to be putting *accents* into it?

Just finished listening to the recording. Good stuff. In my view, Joerg and Trace gave the strongest impressions, just about tied, but Ben also did a good job (all the more so given the raspy throat, which can't have been pleasant, as Adam noted).

The debate formed clearly around a big divide (to a first approximation coincident with the Atlantic?) regarding the necessity to internationalize the Foundation, and I suspect the votes next week may fall not dissimilarly—with Joerg and Trace on the one side, and largely Ms. Ploshay on the other.

As Joerg pointed out in the debate, what's at stake here is whether, going forward, this Foundation is to become the global umbrella organization for the Bitcoin universe, or merely remain a perceptibly U.S.-centered "Big Bitcoin" business club. If the Foundation's ~40% U.S.-based electorate should fail to look outward in this election, another organization will soon enough fill that void and the international relevancy of this Foundation will diminish accordingly and appropriately.

I know that a bunch of people over here in the Old World are just itching to make that happen, but I'd personally rather see this Foundation salvaged and repurposed towards better ends, as Jon Matonis is as ideal an appointment for an outwards-looking Executive Director as anyone could hope for. In any case, the electorate's decisions next week will be revelatory and significant.

Just finished listening to the recording. Good stuff. In my view, Joerg and Trace gave the strongest impressions, just about tied, but Ben also did a good job (all the more so given the raspy throat, which can't have been pleasant, as Adam noted).

The debate formed clearly around a big divide (to a first approximation coincident with the Atlantic?) regarding the necessity to internationalize the Foundation, and I suspect the votes next week may fall not dissimilarly—with Joerg and Trace on the one side, and largely Ms. Ploshay on the other.

As Joerg pointed out in the debate, what's at stake here is whether, going forward, this Foundation is to become the global umbrella organization for the Bitcoin universe, or merely remain a perceptibly U.S.-centered "Big Bitcoin" business club. If the Foundation's ~40% U.S.-based electorate should fail to look outward in this election, another organization will soon enough fill that void and the international relevancy of this Foundation will diminish accordingly and appropriately.

I know that a bunch of people over here in the Old World are just itching to make that happen, but I'd personally rather see this Foundation salvaged and repurposed towards better ends, as Jon Matonis is as ideal an appointment for an outwards-looking Executive Director as anyone could hope for. In any case, the electorate's decisions next week will be revelatory and significant.

Just finished listening to the recording. Good stuff. In my view, Joerg and Trace gave the strongest impressions, just about tied, but Ben also did a good job (all the more so given the raspy throat, which can't have been pleasant, as Adam noted).

The debate formed clearly around a big divide (to a first approximation coincident with the Atlantic?) regarding the necessity to internationalize the Foundation, and I suspect the votes next week may fall not dissimilarly—with Joerg and Trace on the one side, and largely Ms. Ploshay on the other.

As Joerg pointed out in the debate, what's at stake here is whether, going forward, this Foundation is to become the global umbrella organization for the Bitcoin universe, or merely remain a perceptibly U.S.-centered "Big Bitcoin" business club. If the Foundation's ~40% U.S.-based electorate should fail to look outward in this election, another organization will soon enough fill that void and the international relevancy of this Foundation will diminish accordingly and appropriately.

I know that a bunch of people over here in the Old World are just itching to make that happen, but I'd personally rather see this Foundation salvaged and repurposed towards better ends, as Jon Matonis is as ideal an appointment for an outwards-looking Executive Director as anyone could hope for. In any case, the electorate's decisions next week will be revelatory and significant.

Thanks for the reply and I should have read this thread before posting.

One more question:  When this first occurred, I selected the option to begin re-indexing.  Then decided I'd better research this matter before continuing and aborted the re-index at about 67 weeks remaining.  I have now downloaded and installed 0.8.5.   When I run the new version it is continuing the re-indexing from the abort point.  Any problem, risk with allowing this to continue?  Thank you, I really appreciate your help.

Just got this message with Qt: "Corrupted Blockchain Detected do you want to rebuild".  Advice please.  TIA

The Bitcoin Foundation represents its constituent members, not all Bitcoin users and not some undefined "community."

The fact that the Bitcoin Foundation keeps its discussion board closed so the public cannot view it highlights this problem.  You have some members like Marco Santori saying they represent just the constituent members and business interests while you have others trying to claim the Foundation represents all of Bitcoin.  They don't have a consistent message and people are taking advantage of this unclear message and purpose.

I don't say we should not interact with and talk to government.

But looking at the disruptive potential of crypto currency I strongly believe that the lobbying-concepts of the past will not take us anywhere when it comes to organising a smooth transition of our current system to one based on crypto technology.

There is no point trying to get crypto currency implemented into the old system and it's ideals and ideas, now's the time to develop entirely new systems and ideas that are only now possible with the advent of the blockchain.

Governments an financial institutions will play a much smaller role in that new system and this is what we need to educate them about. We need to develop new ideas for how an adminstration can get the funding for necessary projects after having lost the power to tax income or to confiscate bank accounts whenever they need some cash because simply these times are coming to an end. We need mechanisms that allow the funding of public goods and services based on volantury contributions by the people who understand that their society needs these goods and services and who can by funding these projects make their vote for what the government should do with every payment.

We are talking about hyperdemocratisation.

And we need to consult government in regards to what they can do to make the transition as painless and with as little victims and collataral damage for society as possible. That is their ultimate responsibility.

Imagine an asteroid heading towards earth on collision course. Seeing it comming, does it make more sense to turn around and ask the government if that asteroid has all the licences it needs to creat a compliant impact on the planet's surface or does it make more sense to try to estimate the location and magnitude of that impact and to evacuate as many people as possible and to get prepared for the consequences of the impact?

Crypto currency is a rather huge asteroid for the financial system and it does not care about being licensed or not in the long run and no license will reduce its impact.

As such, we need someone who will engage fully with the US government, not someone who is saying 'trying to implement it into the regulatory framework of the legacy financial system is an absurd' and hope that the banks who are refusing to open accounts for bitcoin businesses understand, or that the momentum will pick up enough in isolation that it becomes inevitable - it won't.

I predict that these candidates will get the most votes in the primary, listed from most votes to least:

Elizabeth T. Ploshay
Joerg Platzer
Trace Mayer
Ben Davenport
Dmitry Murashchik
Luke Dashjr
Duncan Goldie-Scot

What do you think?

There is a key difference here between engaging with legislators and educating them that bitcoin does not need heavy handed regulation (as the foundation has done last week in Washington), from just shunning governments entirely and hoping that they will leave us alone saying 'na na you can't shut us down because you can't turn off the internet!!'.  This is the path to destruction, so any candidate that engages with regulators and government would get my vote.

The absurdity of trying to regulate Bitcoin

> Imagine Gutenberg going to Rome to lobby for the printing press with the Pope!

There is an obvious divide going right through the Bitcoin community, more like a canyon than like a gap: for and against trying to get regulation and compliance of Bitcoin.

I am clearly taking a side on this issue: lobbying for Bitcoin and trying to implement it into the regulatory framework of the legacy financial system is an absurd, unreasonable and irresponsible waste of resources.

I would like to lift this discussion away from Bitcoin to the level of crypto-currency altogether. It is possible, even though now hardly imaginable, that Bitcoin could be co-opted on a political level and turned into something controllable. That is what the people on the regulatory side will ultimatively want and it means the implementation of transaction-reversibility, black- or whitelisting and KYC and AML on every level, even for human to human transactions. The regulators will not stop at getting the exchanges regulated (which is fine by the way as long as people can choose not to use them). Regulators and governments do not stop at half way or at 99% control, they want 100% control, always. 'A little regulated' is as much possible as 'a little pregnant'. Everybody who stands for 'compromising with the government' sounds like a dreamer to me as I have never seen a government 'compromise' with its subjects.

But even in the unlikely event of Bitcoin being turned into Paypal 2.0 that would not stop but merely delay the rise of crypto-currency as the next, more resilient one is waiting just around the corner. Even if the pope would have gained control over Gutenberg's first printing press and turned it into a machine that can only print bibles in Latin the next free printing press would have been built the next day by someone else.

The printing press and crypto-currency both are the kind of invention that change things forever. The first took away the church's monopoly on the contents of books and the second took away the government's monopoly on the creation of money. This kind of thing cannot be turned back, the technology is out and will never be collectively forgotten again.

Therefore and beyond all unnecessary and highly ideological arguments: you cannot regulate the unregulatable so let's stop wasting energy on this absurd undertaking please.

We can merely try to inform and educate governments and people about the changes coming up in order to help smooth the transition from our world to the rising crypto-economy so that this transition will be as painless and with as few victims and as little collateral damage as possible.

Please don't missunderstand what you call my 'goals'. When I say that Bitcoin will regulate the regulators and that the state has just lost one of the mechanisms from which it derives its most power, namely the monopoly on the creation of money, then these are not my goals. It doesn't even matter if I like that or not or if you or Obama or Merkel like that or not. It is simply what is happening.

So I am rather the messenger here reporting the obvious than someone demanding these things.

We should react to this new reality instead of playing around with our old mechanisms and organisations and my goal is probably to achieve that.

I would really like to know the opinion of each candidate on a number of issues... I'm going to try to make a list of what I think are the major issues. Suggestions are welcome.

The absurdity of trying to regulate Bitcoin

> Imagine Gutenberg going to Rome to lobby for the printing press with the Pope!

There is an obvious divide going right through the Bitcoin community, more like a canyon than like a gap: for and against trying to get regulation and compliance of Bitcoin.

I am clearly taking a side on this issue: lobbying for Bitcoin and trying to implement it into the regulatory framework of the legacy financial system is an absurd, unreasonable and irresponsible waste of resources.

I would like to lift this discussion away from Bitcoin to the level of crypto-currency altogether. It is possible, even though now hardly imaginable, that Bitcoin could be co-opted on a political level and turned into something controllable. That is what the people on the regulatory side will ultimatively want and it means the implementation of transaction-reversibility, black- or whitelisting and KYC and AML on every level, even for human to human transactions. The regulators will not stop at getting the exchanges regulated (which is fine by the way as long as people can choose not to use them). Regulators and governments do not stop at half way or at 99% control, they want 100% control, always. 'A little regulated' is as much possible as 'a little pregnant'. Everybody who stands for 'compromising with the government' sounds like a dreamer to me as I have never seen a government 'compromise' with its subjects.

But even in the unlikely event of Bitcoin being turned into Paypal 2.0 that would not stop but merely delay the rise of crypto-currency as the next, more resilient one is waiting just around the corner. Even if the pope would have gained control over Gutenberg's first printing press and turned it into a machine that can only print bibles in latin the next free printing press would have been built the next day by someone else.

The printing press and crypto-currency both are the kind of invention that change things forever. The first took away the church's monopoly on the contents of books and the second took away the government's monopoly on the creation of money. This kind of thing cannot be turned back, the technology is out and will never be collectively forgotten again.

Therefore and beyond all unnecessary and highly ideological arguments: you cannot regulate the unregulatable so let's stop wasting energy on this absurd undertaking please.

We can merely try to inform and educate governments and people about the changes coming up in order to help smooth the transition from our world to the rising crypto-economy so that this transition will be as painless and with as few victims and as little collateral damage as possible.

> If the eye of Sauron is upon you GTFO of Mordor!

The foundation is based in and under the jurisdiction of the US of A. The USA is an absurdly overregulated economy with a regime that is trying to abolish privacy in all aspects of people's lives and thus the most hostile environment for Bitcoin on this planet. The fact that the majority of the current members of the foundation board run rather big businesses that are dependent on the goodwill of that regime does not really make things better.

It is a no-brainer to demand the foundation being internationalised and based in a more freedom-affine country that embraces innovation instead of trying to keep the status quo by all means. We should promote the creation of several independant foundations, associations, societies or organisations, be they defined geographically or focused on certain aspects of crypto-economics or certain goals of their members.

Any satoshi spent on 'lobbying for Bitcoin in Washington' is an irresponsible waste of money donated by members of the Bitcoin community in good faith. And it will take us exactly nowhere.

There are definitely a ton of localized issues and a ton of talented developers around Europe (our best Android wallets and wallet hardware seem to come from there  ).

^^ These are views and positions that almost all of us hold, though. And maybe I misunderstood what the purpose of the position was. But you're pretty much right that she would be best if all that will be required is to write up communication memos and talk to politicians.

I just wanted to pop in here to add in a good word for Joerg. His leadership in single-handedly bootstrapping the world's first local bitcoin economy here in Berlin make him the obvious Board candidate to help steer the Foundation in the right direction--hopefully helping to replicate bitcoin's success in Berlin also in a multitude of other locales around the world.

Right now pretty much every time we have a bitcoin gathering (organized and hosted by Joerg) here in Berlin, we have local and international journalists and film crews attending. The amount of ongoing media buzz Room 77 and the other bitcoin businesses and gatherings here are generating is just ridiculous and is a testament to the PR genius of the tireless dynamo named Joerg Platzer.

It is no exaggeration to say that Berlin would hardly even be on the bitcoin world map (any more than other nearby capitals such as Prague or Bratislava) without Joerg. Thanks to his efforts over the last three years, we are not only on the map but have become internationally known as the "Bitcoin Mecca", the go-to place to see bitcoin in action at its current full potential. At the regular gatherings, we have visitors from all over the world who've come here to experience the Berlin miracle firsthand. At the August monthly meeting three weeks ago, we had visitors from at least Texas, Colorado, New Hampshire, Slovakia, Austria, Spain, and Russia. Those were just the ones I happened to chat with. A number of people from at least Vienna and Bratislava regularly commute here (6+ hours on the bus or train) for these gatherings. Again, it seems doubtful that much of this would be the case without Joerg, the guy who made it all happen.

Joerg has my vote, and you ought to consider giving him yours, too. With Jon Matonis and Joerg Platzer in leadership positions at the Foundation, the future will look so bright that I'll have to put on my shades!

If the eye of Sauron is upon you GTFO of Mordor!

The foundation is based in and under the jurisdiction of the US of A. The USA is an absurdly overregulated economy with a regime that is trying to abolish privacy in all aspects of people's lives and thus the most hostile environment for Bitcoin on this planet. The fact that the majority of the current members of the foundation board runs rather big businesses that are dependend on the goodwill of that regime does not really make things better.

It is a no-brainer to demand the foundation being internationalised and based in a more freedom-affine country that embraces innovation instead of trying to keep the status quo by all means. We should promote the creation of several independant foundations, associations, societies or organisations, be they defined geographically or focussed on certain aspects of crypto economics or certain goals of their members.

Any satoshi spent on 'lobbying for Bitcoin in Washington' is an irresponsible waste of money donated by members of the Bitcoin community in good faith. And it will take us exactly nowhere.